Come out of your closet and take your licks. How can you back an explicitly pro-religion party that thinks women are second-class citizens, chattels of their husbands and The State, and who favors widening the gap between the rich and non-rich even more?
As the original poster, let me comment (not that you can stop me).
You say 'This thread for example starts off implying that if one chooses to wear the label "Atheist" then one is automatically not a Republican (another label),...'
but since you are talking implications rather than overt statements, wasn't the implication there elliptically that "Since today the Republican Party is so overtly pro-religion, why would an atheist be Republican."
As for the Democrats, sure, a majority of them would probably claim to be religions, BUT they don't want turn the U.S. into a virtual theocracy.
I am not American, but do pay some attention to US politics. For myself, I could not vote for a party whose platform contained the premise of "god". Even if there were other principles and ideals that appealed to me, or my vision for the direction the policies of my nation needed to go in, that premise would be a dealbreaker. I think a person (voter) can reasonably assume that if an idea is important enough to a party to be part of their official platform, it will come into play regarding the formation of policies.
Maybe I am guilty of bigotry towards the religious, however, I could not respect a leader who professed to believe in a higher power, ergo refuting logic and reason. I also believe there are many Atheist politicians, who would never admit so, as it would be considered political suicide.
@paradigm - that's not even the most ridiculous part - Google the Mormon religion, THEN come back and we will share a great laugh over how such a gullible, deluded nincompoop could possibly hope to run a country!
I have been laughing since he received the nomination, however the trend of growth in the Mormon religion is no laughing matter. I find it scary.
It has mainstreamed enough that a presidential nominee adheres, and is presumably accepted upon that premise, at least enough to secure(until recent bungles) almost half the electoral votes. Maybe the US is only 50 years away from a Scientologist nominee, something I would have thought downright impossible 10 years ago
This, from the Totally Off-Topic Department (look it up!):
Jury hears Los Angeles chef say how he cooked wife
Associated Press – Wed, Sep 19, 2012
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A chef won't take the stand in his own defense in a trial where he's accused of killing his wife and then cooking her body for four days in boiling water to get rid of the evidence, according to his attorney.
(I can't seem to get that Campbel's Soup tune out of my head --)
Was she a young and tender thing? Were Fava beans somehow included? LOL
RE: "Was she a young and tender thing?" - at first, no.
Personally, I don't see how any atheist could support the Republican Party if they actually read the Republican Party Platform.
Oh, it's entirely possible that they consider other issues more important than church/state issues or creationism. Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean fighting religion is the most important thing in your life. Of course most people here on an atheist site are by definition not apathetic on these issues... or they wouldn't be here.
However it must be getting more and more difficult for atheists with an R next to their name to ignore the god-bothering.
Interesting, speaking of which, that no one has commented on the fact that the Ds put some theocratic language into their platform at the convention; in fact their leadership rammed it through. If, as someone said earlier, that's a disqualifier for him, he/she ought not to vote for either of the major parties.
I personally find both parties to be stinking piles of shit, for slightly differing reasons. I live in a battleground state; I may have to decide which pile smells slightly less stinky rather than vote for a third party or simply not check any box at all for that race, as I go on down the ballot to vote against bullshit "personhood" amendments (sigh, again) and in favor of other things.
[Just checked and HAH! No personhood on the ballot this year! I guess losing 70-30 twice in a row does make it harder to try again.]
RE: "no one has commented on the fact that the Ds put some theocratic language into their platform at the convention"
I commented, some time back, when it was announced that they had left it out, but when they hastily decided to re-insert it, I was too disgusted to say anything. But the truth is, that as close as the race is, had I been there and known, as is clear now, that the slightest thing could be the tipping point, I might well have advised them myself to reinsert it. If that's what it takes to keep Romney out of the Oval Office, I can live with that.
Oh, come on, Steve! There is no comparison between the full on theocratic republic platform and the democratic platform that mentions god only because they were afraid of the PR fallout!